Re: Kosov DU - New Scientist Report

[Philip Hypes <phypes@lanl.gov>]

At 03:20 PM 6/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
"Radiation protection is something which has to be applied to every human
being, regardless of
nationality, race, sex, status as military or civilian and so on."

Very true.  In my opinion, discussions of doses (to *anyone* involved) from
battlefield use of DU
are in the realm of ALARA.  In other words, no one is going to violate any
limits (even the wildly
restrictive limits derived from LNT), so all we have to do to determine if
the exposure is warranted
is compare the costs and benefits.

The costs and benefits are vastly different for the various groups you
mentioned.  For US armor
crewmen, the minuscule costs have to be weighed against almost guaranteed
first shot kills and
absolute protection against enemy fire.  For the soldiers fighting
alongside these crewmen, be
they US or another nationality, the risks are even lower, and the benefits
are almost as great;
elimination of Iraq's most potent ground weapons, which could easily have
killed (right then and
there, 100% probability, "latency periods" measured in seconds to hours)
thousands of allied
troops.  For the local populations (very small, in most of the areas of
armored battles), the risks
are the lowest of all, and the benefits depend heavily on nationality.  I
can't deny that the Kuwatis
got more out of it than the Iraqis, who are still saddled with an
autocratic despot of a leader.
 Any war is going to leave behind hazards for the indigenous population,
and DU does not
represent any significant increase to those risks.

When you get to the heart of the matter, the simple fact is that most of
the research has been
done for US soldiers, and only the Iraqi armored corps has a greater cohort
of exposed individuals.
The greatest possible exposures involved US DU - armored vehicles struck by
DU rounds.  Given
the exposure estimates calculated for these individuals (less than a year's
background for me
here at 7,200 feet), it is reasonable to assume that if the exposures for
other exposed groups are
also inconsequential.  Of course, it would not be reasonable to make that
assumption without
our knowledge of the details of the risks from external and internal
exposure to DU.

Of course, if U compounds dissolve differently in European/Asian lungs, or
if their kidneys are
more or less affected by heavy metals, then the US research is of little
use to the rest of the
world.  I would expect the exposure scenarios for US friendly-fire victims
to be a credible worst
case scenario for everyone.  Yes, modelers, I know race, religion, sex,
etc. can affect behavior
and therefore the best model to use when estimating exposure.  But unless
there's some clan
of Arab nomads who spend months or years licking destroyed armored
vehicles, I doubt that
anyone would get much more dose than has been calculated for the US crewmen
mentioned
above.

The preceding diatribe has been spell checked for your reading pleasure.  I
certify that my
writing is as pet-peeve free as is reasonably achievable (APPFARA).


___________________________________________________________
Philip Hypes
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Safeguards Science and Technology Group (NIS 5)
(505) 667-1556  phypes@lanl.gov

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html